Ecosia has just deposited €1,000,000 with a notary in Berlin, reserved solely to help create a new Climate Nobel Prize. Almost at the same time, this year’s Nobel Peace Prize winner, Maria Corina Machado, made a point to praise US President Donald Trump for pushing forward the US agenda for a possible violent takeover to unseat Nicolás Maduro’s regime.
“Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity.”, as George Carlin so wittily observed. So, from that same point of view, should any person who openly supports war and violence as a means of political change be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize?
This is not the first time that the Nobel Peace Prize winner has caused controversy. It happened with Henry Kissinger, who was directly involved in decision-making surrounding war and violence in Vietnam, Cambodia, and Chile. Aung San Suu Kyi, who was accused of severe breach of the Rohingya minority’s human rights, or Barack Obama, who not only hasn’t stopped any of the many USA military interventions, but even intensified their pace in Iraq and Afghanistan.
So, having in mind the effects of this award, which seems to have some magic-like power over Donald Trump, who seems to feel its calling as Gollum does to the Ruling Ring (The Lord of the Rings saga), the question is, should we:
1. Keep the award that is divisive, heavily politicized, and often does not represent the universal value of the ideal it represents, or
2. Replace it with something that unites us as humanity. Something that does represent the ideal aligned with Alfred Nobel’s original vision that his prizes serve “The greatest benefit to humankind.” Replace it with the Climate Nobel Prize.
Boris Matijas 